Category Archives: Death by Government

George Soros is an 86-year old Hungarian multi-billionaire. Somewhat like the “Goldfinger” character in the A.D. 1964 James Bond movie, Soros is determined to destroy The United States of America. Soros strikes me an an ugly and wicked old man. I’ve wondered for years why some “lone gunman” hasn’t whacked him.

Here’s an extraordinary video of a Soros interview where we can see that he’s become so feeble, shaky and almost incoherent that he’s likely to die or become completely incapacitated even before crooked Hillary. I can’t say I’m displeased.

In any case, Soros has apparently lost his capacity for discretion and therefore made some extraordinary admissions during his interview.

For example, he said:

.

• “We have discovered the Achilles heel of western civilization.”

.

Why would Soros gloat over that discovery if he didn’t intend to destroy “western civilization”? Of what use could an “Achilles Heel” be if not as a means to destroy an adversary?

What is the “western civilization” that Soros seeks to destroy?

At it’s foundation, “western civilization” is Christendom. It’s a civilization, culture and system of values that’s fundamentally based on the Christian faith. Soros is apparently at war with Christianity and the Christ.Read the rest of this entry »

GUN CONTROL “NUTS”In the 20th century, over 50 million people were murdered by their own governments–AFTER those governments banned private ownership of firearms.GUN CONTROL KILLS. IT COULD HAPPEN HERE[courtesy Google Images]

“There has never been an occasion where a people gave up their weapons in the interest of peace that didn’t end in their massacre.” Louis L’Amour

ZeroHedge.com reported in “Meanwhile In Chicago, 120 People Shot In First 10 Days Of 2016” that,

“Even as Obama takes his anti-gun crusade to new highs [by] dispensing executive orders, the president conveniently continues to ignore the state of affairs in his native Chicago—a city in which guns are banned—yet where the shooting epidemic has never been worse.

“According to the Chicago Tribune, the total number of shootings in the windy city has risen to 120 in just over a week into the new year . . . at least 19 people have been killed and at least 101 more have been wounded. This is three times higher than compared to the same period one year ago.

“Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi released a statement saying, ‘Every year Chicago Police recover more illegal guns than officers in any other city, and as more and more illegal guns continue to find their way into our neighborhoods. So it is clear we need stronger state and federal gun laws.‘”

That’s not “clear” at all.

What’s clear is that the Chicago Police Department is lying or stupid. As you’ll read, there’s good evidence indicating that Chicago gun deaths aren’t due to Chicago’s gun control laws being too weak, but because their gun control laws are too strong.

Gun control kills.

The cops should know it. Insofar as the Chicago Police Department advocates more gun control, it’s helping to cause, rather than prevent, more deaths.

The Washington Times reports (“Dennis Ross pushes zero-based budgeting for federal government”) that Congress may impose much stricter financial controls on government agencies and bureaucracies.

According to said Congressman Dennis A. Ross, Florida Republican and a member of the House Committee on Financial Services,

“The streamlining tactic, known as zero-based budgeting, requires each agency or business unit to justify their budget requests from scratch for all existing and newly requested programs. It’s something the federal government hasn’t attempted since Democratic President Jimmy Carter advocated for it in the 1970s; it relies instead on past budgets as a baseline of money that’s guaranteed, and then requests additional sums year-over-year.

“‘We should be painfully honest with the American people, because it’s their money. When we do the budget process, we want to have some justification for every appropriation that is sought—a legal basis for it, an amount that is less than last year’s and a summary to express the outcome of it.”

Oh, pulleese—as if government could ever be “painfully honest” with the American people about anything. (If government started being “painfully honest,” half of Congress would wind up “painfully” in prison.)

She might be a world-class bitch, but she’s not a world-class liar.[courtesy YouTube]

On Thursday, Malaysia Airlines flight MH 17 was destroyed by internal malfunction, bomb in the luggage compartment, or surface-to-air missile. For the moment, virtually everyone agrees that the crash was caused by a surface-to-air missile and most agree that the missile had to be a “Buk” SAM built by Russia.

Later that Thursday, Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Charlie Rose and spoke about Flight MH17. She referenced evidence that was already available that suggested that the “Russian insurgents” (Ukraine rebels) with the aid of the Russian government–were probably responsible for the destruction of Flight MH17.

For now, that’s a conclusion I reject (see my previous article Who Destroyed Malaysia Flight 17?) as unreasonable. My confidence in my own conclusion (that the rebels could probably not have caused the crash) is bolstered by the fact that Hillary disagrees with me.

As you’ll see below, Hillary says that if she were leading the investigation into the crash, her first questions would be who had the “equipment” and who had the expertise to destroy Flight MH 17. She concludes that only the “Russian insurgents” and/or the Russia government could have had the necessary equipment and expertise.

“On the night of September 11, 2012, a heavily armed group of between 125 and 150 gunmen attacked the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, in Libya, killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and another diplomat. Several hours later in the early morning of the next day, a second assault targeted a nearby CIA annex in a different compound about one mile away, killing two embassy security personnel. Ten others were injured in the attacks which were strongly condemned by the governments of Libya, the United States, and many other countries throughout the world. . . . The debate over the events before, during, and after the attack featured heavily in the 2012 US Presidential election. In the following months, several Republican members of Congress launched investigations, which are currently ongoing, and the topic remains a matter of great controversy, including the CIA’s presence and role at the diplomatic mission. . . . On August 6, 2013, it was reported that the U.S. had filed criminal charges against several individuals, including militia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala, for alleged involvement in the attacks.[13] To date, a few arrests have been made (none by the FBI); no one has been prosecuted.”

Martial law and a police state aren’t just conspiracy theories; they’re happening. Right now.

The video below does not express a conclusion, but it implies one–and it provides lots of evidence to support that implied conclusion.

• As an aside, I’ve heard that during the Viet Nam war, the MOS (military job description) most likely to be killed by the Viet Cong (VC) was not the US.infantry soldier–it was the American clerks.

Yes, the VC fought the US infantry from time to time in horrific battles–and lost virtually every battle.. Therefore, whenever possible, the VC was too smart to waste its time, resources and lives trying to fight directly against the overwhelmingly powerful US infantry. Instead, the VC preferred to kill unarmed and unwary clerks. The VC knew that the US infantry could not wage war without the support of masses of clerks. Kill the clerks, and the infantry can’t fight.

This strategy may explain why the US infantry won every major battle against the VC and yet, the US still lost the Viet Nam war. We beat the VC’s infantry. The VC beat our clerks.

“Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant or a fearful master.” George Washington (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I postulate that being a good American means living in harmony with the spirit of The Constitution of the United States. If that’s true, should we ever trust government?

Absolutely not.

The reason we have three, separate and independent branches of government (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) is to keep those governmental branches fighting among themselves and thereby prevent the emergence of a single, dictatorial government that worked for its own interests rather than those of the people. The mandate for three branches of government (separation of powers) is evidence that the Founders didn’t trust the federal government.

The reason we have “checks and balances” in the Constitution is to protect the people from the federal government. The Founders didn’t trust the feds.

The reason we have the 1st Amendment right to free speech is to allow us to expose government corruption.

According to the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights,” the reason we have the entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) is to prevent “misconstruction or abuse” of the powers granted under the Constitution to the officers, officials and employees of the federal government.

Insofar as the Constitution was intended to allow for only a “limited” government, that Constitution was intended to protect against government’s inevitable and insatiable appetite for more power, more taxes and less freedom. The Founders didn’t trust the federal government.